Intellectually, Dan, I agree. But, I think a lot of people did not believe that the ACA would apply to them. Did the Administration do a good job informing the general public that all aspects of healthcare would be affected? IMO, they did not. Now, this has allowed a foothold for the opponents of Mr. Obama to play on this fear, paranoia, and doubt.

The explanation of the ACA, offered by the Administration, was inadequate and misleading. I have difficulty labeling it a lie; because I understand the political games played during campaigns. Bullet points instead of indepth explanations. But, I can see how others may see deception.

Anyone who understands either big government or big business can intellectually see that the implementation of this large of a program will have its bumps. But, confidence in the direction of the program is necessary to keep on track. IMO, The Administration has done a poor job providing leadership.

Fortunately -- I hope -- this law may be reversed so we can actually FIX our health care and insurance system rather than turning them over to the least competent institution in our nation.

I would love to hear your proposal on how to fix the health care and insurance system. To this date, I have yet to see the Republicans bring a bill up for a vote which purports to fix the health care and insurance system - either before or after the passage of the ACA. It's easy to say you don't like something. It requires effort and commitment to create a viable alternative.

I do not believe in offering the empty criticism, so common these days, without also offering alternatives.

The ACA should have been implemented with a huge public relations effort that included explanations of how each class of individuals would be affected. In addition, seminars for healthcare providers, and their office staff, should have been provided.

The information on the new quality control standards, record keeping and, even, covered services has been trickling in to providers. This is no way to implement this sort of program. The government has been relying on the middlemen...drug companies, malpractice insurance providers, practice management firms, billing houses, insurance companies etc...to provide details to providers.

I have yet to see a comprehensive document, provided by the government, that identifies these regulations. Providers have to seek out this information or rely on the interpretations offered by these special interests.

If it is this confusing for small provider practices, it is worse for individuals seeking insurance. Rates vary dramatically by zip code. I found out my small town premiums are 50% higher than the rates in Denver. Yet, studies of healthcare costs indicate that claims are less where I live. We are assured this will change once the dust settles. So why jump in now? No wonder that new policies are not being issued.

CB--thanks for the thoughtful post. I agree with your criticisms of the administration's roll out. The right would be more effective with criticisms that were constructive and didn't go over the top to, again, label Obama as the "other."

These comments by Coboard are the kind of useful critique of this program that are very difficult for the Right to make because their media has taught them that fake facts make for much more outrage than mundane truths.

The paid off by lobbyists info is much more popular. The opponents of Ocare, like the Teas, seem eager to trash our country and celebrate each billion in tax money they waste.
They are the greatest danger of the ACA. It caused ordinary Americans to need mental health treatment not covered on their old policy.

The explanation of the ACA, offered by the Administration, was inadequate and misleading. I have difficulty labeling it a lie; because I understand the political games played during campaigns.

And therein lies solid evidence of ideologically based irrationality. The White House discussed at length in 2010 whether to admit that up to 95M people will lose their insurance, and decided instead that Obama should read 25 or more public statements that anyone who wants to keep their policy and doctor can do so.
"Period."
"End of statement."

Then just this week he lied about those 25+ public statements.

That's not just politics; it's also lying. O'Reilly and you, to neither's credit, refuse to use the L word, for very different reasons.

I have to wonder why these muckrakers don't go after all the tax accountants and CPAs in the US. Of course, that's got nothing to do with President Obama and their active goal to torpedo his presidency, so it would probably get a pass.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum